Thursday, December 06, 2018

Watch the Darkstream to understand why the Yellow Vest protest is not about fuel taxes, as the globomedia claims. Russia Today offers a more realistic take:

Even though the French government abandoned the fuel tax hike after sweeping protests, the movement still calls upon its followers to gather on December 8. “The Act IV” will be held under the motto “we stay on our course.” The Facebook event has already counted 6,000 people who wish to participate and 22,000 others who are “interested.”

On Thursday Eric Drouet one of the movement's most famous leaders announced the Yellow Vests plans to approach the residence of Emmanuel Macron. “Saturday will be the final outcome, Saturday is the Elysee, we all would like to go to the Elysee,” he said.

The intelligence services have reported to the Elysee Palace, the official residence of the president, that there have been “calls to kill” and “carry arms to attack” parliamentarians, government officials and police officers, Le Figaro newspaper said on Thursday.

At least three left-wing parties at the French parliament have agreed to discuss a vote of no confidence against the government amid sweeping protests, against Macron’s policies, which have gripped the country.

The French government and the media is trying to scare the public, entirely failing to understand that most of the French public, Left and Right, would be quite happy to see the Macron and his government go the way of Marie Antoinette.

Now disgruntled groups from Left and Right, including students and emergency workers, have joined their campaign. This has ensured that Mr Macron’s approval rating – his lowest since he took office in 2017 - is now just 18 per cent, according to a new YouGov poll. It was conducted the day before Saturday’s riots, with 1006 people making up a representative sample of the French population quizzed.
That's well below the lowest approval rating ever previously recorded for a French head of state. France is following the Italian model, where nationalists of Left and Right, have joined together against the invaders and their elite enablers.

A friend sent me this today but she didn't cite the source. Said it's from "social media in France" and that she couldn't vouch for it other than that. But it confirms something I had read yesterday. In reply to my query, she has told me that it was posted at Godlike Productions. Said things move fast there so this post is probably gone by now. I don't have a membership at that site, so I can't provide a link, but the original French text (sent me by my friend) is below.

my quick translation:

"To the general population. This is the calm before the storm!!! Set aside provisions, gasoline/oil. Stock up on food and medications!!! We are going to blockade everything on 10 December!!! We’ll stop when what we demand is actually done!!! We've had enough of their taking us for idiots!!! We want to live, not merely survive!!! Join us on 10 December!! NO school, NO government functions! NO stores [open for business]!! We’re blocking airport entrances & exits!! The major public spaces! Offices!! La Srpp !! [no idea what that means] This is to notify the population!!! Join us at the different barricades, or [just] stay home [on Monday]! We Yellow Vests are nonviolent and we want actions, not just pretty words!!! December 10 TOGETHER!!!!&#65279"

If the current French Republic were to fall who would mourn its passing? Damn few, and mostly globalists I'd wager. If it does watch them try to hold whatever government comes next to everything the old government signed on far. "You have a New Model French Republic, do you? Well you're still in the EU. And all this debt is still yours."

Saw an article from Newsweek, via MSN.com the other night, about how the Yellow Vests would really hate Trump, not a revolt against socialism, etc. I thought, "Methinks the lady doth protest too much."

When you got that many pissed-offs in the streets, shouldn't be too hard to cherry-pick some quotes out of it.

Even though the French government abandoned the fuel tax hike after sweeping protests

I don't think they have though. They said they'd delay it for 6 months, which is about as reassuring as someone promising to rape you later.

The globalists, the ancien regime, aren't ever going to let little things like massive public outrage get in the way of their schemes, just as the London branch is determined to turn a decisive referendum result in favour of leaving the EU into keeping Britain shackled to Europe forever.

If they were open to reason and democracy, they wouldn't be globalists.

The only way out is through. Studies show that very few guillotined politicians subsequently raise taxes.

The Scribe wrote:Saw an article from Newsweek, via MSN.com the other night, about how the Yellow Vests would really hate Trump, not a revolt against socialism, etc. I thought, "Methinks the lady doth protest too much."

When you got that many pissed-offs in the streets, shouldn't be too hard to cherry-pick some quotes out of it.

#23I think it's not been about the fuel tax for quite a while now. It's next-level Vox strategy: never mind not giving the enemy a leader they can bribe or threaten, don't even tell what you're rioting over.

"I think it's not been about the fuel tax for quite a while now. It's next-level Vox strategy: never mind not giving the enemy a leader they can bribe or threaten, don't even tell what you're rioting over."

It's a very strong negotiating strategy.

For example -- say you are dissatisfied with the service provided by a company. Call customer complaints, and tell them what happened, then finish with: "What can you do to make me happy?"

You'll be surprised that sometimes the first offer is far more than what you ever hoped to get.

In this case, the French aren't even asking the question... they're just threatening to shut down everything until all the deliberate roadblocks on their life are removed. By not specifying what they perceive to be the roadblocks, this forces the "ruling class" to try removing road blocks which the middle class hasn't even perceived to be a problem yet.

The irony of the situation is that this is what the Commies have been dreaming about for more than two decades: the mob rising up and smashing the system. It's what Antonio Negri and Michael Hart fabulated about in their seminal Empire.

Except the mob was supposed to be made out of goodwhites and brown people, rioting for open borders.

"I think it's not been about the fuel tax for quite a while now. It's next-level Vox strategy: never mind not giving the enemy a leader they can bribe or threaten, don't even tell what you're rioting over."

Women have been using this strategy since the dawn of time. Why tell you what they're mad about? But that doesn't make it less effective to use.

Macron must truly be desperate to launch such a climbdown, but I'm not sure it matters. Marie Antoinette was executed, true, but she was probably above 18% in public opinion. Stupid grandmotherfucker should be skipping town with briefcases full of euros.

Vox, Bell's Theorem and the considerable experimental evidence accumulated by the relevant physicists would seem to support your position regarding the lack of omniscience of God. Einstein was sure that there were local hidden variables behind the apparent randomness of quantum mechanical interactions but this has been demonstrated to be false. Apparently not even God knows certain information about the quantum states of particles before they are measured by an observer. (Presumably God could choose to be that observer when and where he wished, as you indicated.)

Furthermore, Bell's Theorem demonstrates that physics (and by extension, all physical sciences) can say nothing about the mechanism that governs the quantum randomness -- the information about how a particular measurement resolves must come from outside the physical universe as we understand it. An entity which was fundamentally "outside the system" that could "stack the deck" of quantum measurements could trivially manifest any or all of Jesus's miracles without violating any physical laws.

BREAKING: A federal court blasted the DOJ and State Department on Hillary Clinton’s emails and ordered a discovery plan in 10 days as to whether Hillary’s private email system was intentionally set up to evade FOIA requests and lawsuits

Man, out of all the stupid arguments for God not being omniscient or quantum in-determinism, this has got to be one of the most stupid arguments ever put to paper for either of them for a lot of reason, most importantly because it treats 'the laws of physics' as understood by man as though they're anything more than just descriptions of how matter and its motions behave and apriori precludes supernatural things above matter in the great pecking order of things being a possible explanation... just because. Seriously, your argument just reeks of the very same 'SCIENCE! (TM)' scientism that ironically enough, Vox is no fan of. It really just boils down to 'because we in our limited understanding can't really make sense of things on the quantum scale and because I feel very attached to a certain quantum indeterminate formulation of quantum mechanics', God, THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE ITSELF AND EVERY MECHANISM THEREIN, can't possibly know all the ins and out of things on the small scale.' I'm not even really arguing one way or the other whether God is or isn't omniscient or whether quantum indeterminate interpretations make more sense or not, just that your argument here is very 'determinedly' bad. Like, climate scientist bad, as Vox has well documented.

I don't see any reason why the momentum should stop on or before Saturday. The cops sent after them have already joined forces with them, rather than continuing to counter them. Although "out of towners," I see no reason why provincial cops, who come from regions even more sympathetic to the complaints than Parisian, should be more reliable than the Parisian cops, who have already joined the rebellion themselves.

The God of the Old Testament specifically said it would be 400 years before he had to get the Jews out of Egypt, but they screwed up, intermarried, and fell away from the faith too fast for him. He had to get Moses going in a hurry after a little more than 200 years.

Us humans with our darned 'free will' often disappoint and sometimes surprise God.

I'll believe Macron has permanently dropped his fuel tax when he's ten years in the grave and it hasn't been proposed again. Even if the protests have grown beyond / never really been about the fuel tax, you know progs never give up on their agenda, they just slink off to wait until you've forgotten how untrustworthy they are.

Sad that we have such short memories and they such dedication to evil, but that's why gallows, firing squads and helicopter rides were all invented. So we don't have to worry about forgetting who was evil.

Eh, BTW, speaking of democracy down the tubes... anyone else catch San Fran Nan's threat to not seat two GOP house members because of "election fraud"?

She pointed out the house gets to approve it's own membership. If we didn't have such pathetic limp cucks in the GOPe House membership, they'd respond by pointing out they still control the House and in response to Pelosi's threat would refuse to seat a single damn Democrat.

Ever again.

But they won't. It's just another Rubicon crossed, another Gracchi murdered, another chunk torn out of the Mos Maiorum by liberals who have no business being given even the least shred of power.

What makes this result smell less of scientism is that its conclusion is fundamentally one in which science itself has demonstrated a fundamental limit to its own ability to predict and explain phenomena.

The problem with Bell's Theorem^H^H^H^H^H^H^HHYPOTHESIS is the assumption that before the polarity of the two particles is measured means that they have no polarity up until one is measured, and then the other, in "action at a distance" takes on the opposite polarity.

This is false. It's a product of the quantum mathematics which, for every unmeasured polarization, must include a term for the probability of any possible polarization.

This is yet another case of the Theoretical Physicists putting the math ahead of actual physics, because they fail to check the assumptions of the math to see if they actually correlate with reality.

For example, particles A and B are entangled at emission at time T0. At some time T1, A's polarization is determined to be vertical. Supposedly, at that instant, B's probabalistic range of polarizations suddenly "collapses" to horizontal polarization.

I maintain that A was vertically polarized at time T0, as B was horizontally polarized at the same moment.

Just because something is not yet measured by a physicist doesn't mean that it doesn't already have a value.

Bell's HYPOTHESIS is the biggest piece of self-deluded idiocy that I have ever seen in any of the sciences.

Taking a nonsensical artifact of the math and heralding it as the central tenet of a hypothesis just beggars belief.

Why do I call it Bell's Hypothesis?Because if you can't test it, then it's not a theory. Bell's hypothesis literally cannot be tested. I could just as easily say that particle B's polarization is suddenly fixed when A's polarization is measured, through the intervention of invisible, perfume-farting nano-unicorns. And nobody could prove it wrong, because IT'S NOT TESTABLE.

"I maintain that A was vertically polarized at time T0, as B was horizontally polarized at the same moment."

You are maintaining that A and B's polarization are local hidden variables set at the time that A and B are together that persists as they move away from each other. This is what Einstein believed, but we can experimentally demonstrate that this is not the case -- your statement implies that we will measure different correlations between A and B's polarizations than what we actually get.

Check the explanation in the link I gave -- you don't have to buy into quantum mechanics at all to see the contradiction created by assuming that both logic works and that local variables exist. (Many of the explanations of Bell's Inequality / Theorem are messy / require too much math but this one does not.) Quantum mechanics happens to explain the experimentally observed probabilities, but that isn't directly relevant to Bell's demonstration of the problem with local hidden variables.

"Just because something is not yet measured by a physicist doesn't mean that it doesn't already have a value."

Apparently the only loophole that makes logical sense is "superdeterminism" in which the values of all measurements are set before the beginning of time -- but even in this case the values of the measurement have to be injected into the Universe from "outside".

1: Not-yet-measured does not mean hidden. That's just more bafflegarb from the theoreticians lost in their probability expressions.

If there is a pile of money on the table, and all of the processes which can add or subtract from the pile have already occurred, then the amount has been determined already, regardless of whether you count it now, or a few moments from now, because right now you're busy answering the door.

Just because your back is to the table doesn't make the value of the money on the table "hidden"

2: Being set at the time emission is not the same as being predetermined at the time the universe was created. The argument is a false dichotomy.

The basis for Bell's Hypothesis is the assertion that particle's polarization is random and capriciously fluctuating UNTIL it is measured, at which point it suddenly starts behaving. That is utterly absurd. Why would the particle not revert to it's formerly capricious, undetermined ways? You want "local hidden variables"? Hell, you've just created one: An "I have/haven't been observed" flag.

Let's say I am standing on a large, level playing field, and I throw a ball upwards with a velocity such that it reaches its peak altitude after 2 seconds before it starts heading downwards again.

As we know, the path of a projectile is (on the first order) described by a parabola, and I can calculate x and y values for any value of t that I desire.

None of which changes the fact that at time = 4.0x seconds, the ball has impacted the ground, and isn't going to proceed to any lesser values of Y, DESPITE WHAT THE EQUATION SAYS.

The very first rule of engineering -- when you come up with an answer, does it contradict physical reality, or any of your initial assumptions? If so, then it doesn't matter how correct your math is, the answer is still WRONG. Time to pay less attention to QM dogma and more attention to Occam's razor and logic.

Bell's Hypothesis asserts faster-than-light communication, using some magic telegraph line that can't be detected, rather than admitting that the randomness happens at the time of emission, not at the time of measurement, as if particle polarization MUST be continuously fluctuating, like the position of an electron within an atomic orbital.

This is just as nonsensical as the cosmologists with their "neutron stars" in which they posit that somehow atoms collapse into substance of pure neutrons, as if the gravitational force is somehow going to overcome the electrical force, which is 10^35 (or so) stronger.

"The basis for Bell's Hypothesis is the assertion that particle's polarization is random and capriciously fluctuating UNTIL it is measured, at which point it suddenly starts behaving."

This is not quite it. Rather, the explanation for the experimentally observed Bell's Inequality violations is that the particle does not have a defined polarization until it is observed. If you reject this explanation, the only available alternative consistent with standard logic that physicists have been able to come up with is superdeterminism.

Look into the *experimental* results regarding this, which have been replicated many times by physicists who like the idea of quantum indeterminacy and superluminal communication even less than you do. Something very weird is definitely going on.

"This is just as nonsensical as the cosmologists with their "neutron stars" in which they posit that somehow atoms collapse into substance of pure neutrons, as if the gravitational force is somehow going to overcome the electrical force, which is 10^35 (or so) stronger."

The cosmologists who reject the neutron star hypothesis are then stuck explaining what the rapidly rotating x-ray sources in supernova remnants are made of. Some of these objects rotate extremely fast and thus must be small (otherwise their surface would be moving faster than light). Similar objects are in binary star systems where they induce a wobble in their companion, which means they must be massive.

Claire Berlinski write about Paris. She is a great writer. Too bad she has stage 4 Trump Derangement Syndrome. Still, she is worth reading. https://www.city-journal.org/police-handling-of-paris-riots... France has its own culture and history—one so rich in popular uprisings and demonstrations that the French commentariat is not asking whether this resembles earlier episodes in French history, but which revolutionary episode it best resembles.

"as if the gravitational force is somehow going to overcome the electrical force, which is 10^35 (or so) stronger."

This is due to scale. Electrical force is stronger, yes, but is also falls off at a much higher rate, meaning that at larger scales the gravity that so much weaker as to be nigh incomparable at the atomic scale is suddenly much, much stronger.

If there are enough atoms within a space that has large enough dimensions that gravity has slightly more effect across it than electrical forces, it will begin to overcome electrical repulsion to an extent, "bending" electromagnetism's comparatively iron law. A bit further down the line, the electromagnetic forces are for most intents and purposes completely overcome, and only the weak and strong nuclear forces remain in full exercise.

Entertainingly, the relationship between stronger forces at smaller scales and weaker ones that span larger distances is in many ways comparable to the relationship between a family and a nation.

The family utilizes stronger and more coherent dynamics with small numbers of people, yet the same relationship and dynamics cannot be had with large enough numbers of people, so weaker forces and dynamics more able to span the larger population take over.

"The cosmologists who reject the neutron star hypothesis are then stuck explaining what the rapidly rotating x-ray sources in supernova remnants are made of. Some of these objects rotate extremely fast and thus must be small (otherwise their surface would be moving faster than light). Similar objects are in binary star systems where they induce a wobble in their companion, which means they must be massive."

The model of the pulsars, is that of a lighthouse, with radiation emanating from the poles, and as the pole sweeps by, we receive a spike in the signal from the pulsar. But any star spinning that fast would rip itself apart, so "neutron star!!!" to the rescue.

Again, this is an absolute NONSENSE RESULT, as it requires gravitational forces to overcome both the electrical force AND the weak force, both of which are many dozens of orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational force.

THEREFORE, there is no such thing as a neutron star. Go BACCK to the drawing board, and come up with something new, because "neutron stars" demand something that is impossible. You can't even force 3 neutrons to stick with 1 proton. How are you going to force 10^???? neutrons to stick together? Again, GRAVITY DOESN'T CUT IT, because IT'S NOT STRONG ENOUGH.

I have studied astronomy and cosmology since I was 5 years old. As a result of that leading to astrophysics, I got into nuclear physics (at the qualitative level) when I was 10 years old.

There are MUCH more plausible explanations for pulsars without conjuring up PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE states of matter.

Next up -- explain how a 5,000K body can heat up it's atmosphere to 100,000K, thereby violating the "zeroeth" law of Thermodynamics by requiring heat to flow from a low-temperature substance to a high temperature substance. Bonus point if you can figure out what commonly known object I'm even referring to in this paragraph.

Feynman said something very important in his book on quantum electrodynamics -- "we don't know if this is how it works -- we only know that this is a convenient model for calculating the correct numbers."

QM is NOT the holy grail. It's NOT an explanation for how things work, it's merely a tool for calculations. And as we've seen in several other areas, besides the nonsensical probability term as an artifact leading to Bell's untestable hypothesis, QM has problems. BIG problems.

Before QM, there was another way of calculating some of these things, which, IIRC, was called wavelet theory. It produced the correct answers, but was abandoned because the amount of math needed to solve anything more than the interactions of a couple hydrogen atoms became prohibitively huge.-- NOT because it wasn't producing the correct answers.

Wavelet theory should be picked up and examined again. It was grounded in observable results, and isn't prone to "quantum weirdness"... which is a tell, right there, that even to this day, nobody can really wrap their minds around all the internal contradictions required to believe that QM is the answer to everything at and smaller than the atomic level.

By the way, Pulsars are much more simply explained by the dynamics of an electric "relaxation oscillator" circuit. They are capable of producing frequencies into the MHz range, so the trifling 1~10 kHz of the most rapid pulsars is easily accomplished, and has the added benefit of not requiring the invention of impossible states of matter, nor that of in which all the electric charge in that body is spinning on one axis, while THAT axis is spun about by another axis..... at speeds up to and over 1000 RPM. And how does a NEUTRON substance...which, by definition, is a neutral material... have all of this electric charge to be creating all of this electro-magnetic radiation, at HUGE power levels, but which, if put on a kelvin scale for blackbody radiation, correlate to only a few degrees above absolute zero?

"This is due to scale. Electrical force is stronger, yes, but is also falls off at a much higher rate, meaning that at larger scales the gravity that so much weaker as to be nigh incomparable at the atomic scale is suddenly much, much stronger."

Wrong. Electric force and gravitational force both fall off by the inverse square law.

"If there are enough atoms within a space that has large enough dimensions that gravity has slightly more effect across it than electrical forces, it will begin to overcome electrical repulsion to an extent, "bending" electromagnetism's comparatively iron law. A bit further down the line, the electromagnetic forces are for most intents and purposes completely overcome, and only the weak and strong nuclear forces remain in full exercise."

That is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

Reducing the distance does not change the ratio the strength of the electric force over gravity.

Yes, the weak force seems to fall off at 1/(d^4) or so... which means at the ranges required for gravity (the weakest of all forces by a factor of over 10^30) to overcome the weak force.

It simply cannot be done, because the closer you try to shove a bunch neutrons together, the GREATER the advantage that the weak force has over the gravitational force. Simply put, large masses do not assist in this in any way at all. It's all pure fantasy. A very well-sold fantasy, but fantasy nevertheless.

"France has its own culture and history—one so rich in popular uprisings and demonstrations that the French commentariat is not asking whether this resembles earlier episodes in French history, but which revolutionary episode it best resembles. "

This was obvious the moment the Paris cops who were sent to quell the rioters took off their helmets and dropped their shields.

Hmm, it occurs to me that electrical force is as often attractive as repulsive, but apparently I need to brush up on my physics a bit before I go further for this discussion.

My conjecture until then is that opposed and overlapping electric fields can potentially counteract each other, while gravitation forces won't except in very particular circumstances. This would leave electric forces largely cancelling each other out.

"It simply cannot be done, because the closer you try to shove a bunch neutrons together, the GREATER the advantage that the weak force has over the gravitational force."

This, however, is simply illogical with regard to forces that do fall off at a higher rate. Yes, the weak force gains advantage the closer things get, however the very fact that it is flexing closer than it would in the first place should clue you in to what is happening here. There is a comparative trade off. At a certain point the trade off is comparatively extreme enough that the closer-ranged force doesn't have much if any effect with regard to the resulting distances, maintaining compressed distances at or slightly above what is aided by other forces.

...On a bit further study, yes, monopole electrical force falls off at 1/d^2. Dipolar electric force (magnetic fields for instance), on the other hand, falls off at 1/d^3. There's the problem. If you have two dipoles close together, the rate is actually even higher, at 1/d^4, and so on and so forth. Considering that even a basic hydrogen atom is an electric dipole...

The Weak force won't allow the densities to get high enough for the gravitational force to overcome it. At the center of a sphere of uniform material, the net gravitational force is 0 (because there is just as much matter puling in one direction as any other). But what you're dealing with is compression of all the matter piled around it.

And at the distances needed for sudden fusion into neutrons, The Weak Force is something like 10^45 stronger than the gravitational force.

Also, there's something else interesting.

A free neutron (one that isn't in the nucleus of an atom) is unstable, with a half life a little over 10 minutes.

So, even with a bunch of electrons and protons, you can't just collapse that into neutrons without the addition of a bunch of neutrinos, a saturating bombardment, because neutrinos so rarely interact with ANYTHING... and finding a good source of neutrinos several seconds AFTER a star has supposedly collapsed for lack of fuel -- good luck finding that. The last of the high density neutrino production ended, at the very least, several seconds earlier, which means that those neutrinos might as well be in another galaxy.

Nothing works out, not even the sub-atomic recipe for making neutrons (knowing what they decay into tells us what is needed to construct one).

The only time we've ever been able to PRODUCE neutrinos is in the midst of a hydrogen bomb (fusion reaction). But the whole premise of the neutron star is that the fusion reactions have STOPPED (because iron is ash, as far as the nuclear-fusion as fuel for stars theory goes. Hydrogen fuses into Helium. Helium fuses into Beryllium and then into Carbon... etc. with iron being the end-state).

"The Weak force won't allow the densities to get high enough for the gravitational force to overcome it."

This is equivalent to saying that your arms won't allow a murderer with a gun to get close to your body. In order for this to be true, the Weak interaction would have to be stronger than gravity at even an infinite range. I don't know if you're assuming interaction is limited to a certain radius from the center, or what, but your statement is absurd. Metaphorically, your arms aren't significant at the ranges bullets can reach from.

"At the center of a sphere of uniform material, the net gravitational force is 0 (because there is just as much matter puling in one direction as any other). But what you're dealing with is compression of all the matter piled around it."

Which are compressing the middle. Net 0 at the exact center leaves... virtually the entire volume still exerting inward force, compounded with the force exerted on it from further radially outward in the volume.

-So if the area beyond which the weak nuclear force falls off enough to be weaker than gravity... -Contains enough matter which is directly or contiguously in contact with that boundary...-To raise the inward acceleration being applied at that boundary to 10^45 + 1 of the force being applied outward from within that boundary?

And then consider how nearby the weak nuclear force falls off to the point of having weaker effect than gravity.

" But what you're dealing with is compression of all the matter piled around it."

No, it's compressing the matter at the center too, even with an absurdly small radius like one nanometer. The thing is, at that scale the disparity is largely in favor of the weak interaction. "stronger" does not mean "infinitely stronger". A balancing point is thus found between the two depending on the volume.

-So if the area beyond which the weak nuclear force falls off enough to be weaker than gravity... -Contains enough matter which is directly or contiguously in contact with that boundary...-To raise the inward acceleration being applied at that boundary to 10^45 + 1 of the force being applied outward from within that boundary?

Then, consider just how nearby the weak nuclear force falls off to the point of having weaker effect than gravity.

"And at the distances needed for sudden fusion into neutrons, The Weak Force is something like 10^45 stronger than the gravitational force."

Closer to half of that. Still not infinitely stronger.

"So, even with a bunch of electrons and protons, you can't just collapse that into neutrons without the addition of a bunch of neutrinos"

Wrong. You can do exactly that. The reaction emits electron neutrinos, which not-so-coincidentally are the normal matter equal and opposite of electron anti-neutrinos. The process requires no outside input of neutrinos of any sort.

Here's perhaps an easier way to think about it for an engineer or architect. You're familiar with the square cube law? This is the same sort of thing. The superstructure that will support a model building ten inches tall won't even be able to support its own weight if you try to scale the building with exactly the same materials and densities to a thousand stories tall.

An easier way to think about electron neutrinos in neutron composition is like heat/cold to an exothermic reaction. You can say that the reaction produces heat (electron neutrino), or you can say that it consumes cold (electron antineutrino), as funny as that sounds.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blogPlease do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.